ILNews

7th Circuit rules in favor of attorneys in failed business investment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A group of investors suing attorneys who worked on the establishment of two business entities – which later failed – were unable to show the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the attorneys owed the investors any legal duty.

The federal appellate court upheld summary judgment in favor of Beau Jack White and James Beaman and their firm Johnson Beaman Bratch Beal and White LLP on the investors’ claims of RICO violations, conversion, securities fraud, civil conspiracy and legal malpractice.

Real estate investor Chad Seybold hired White and Beaman to help him create two business entities, one of which would be partially owned by a group of investors. At a seminar with potential investors, White explained the concept of limited individual liability afforded by an LLC structure. Seybold told the potential investors that White represented one of the new companies being formed, he’s looking out for the investors’ best interests, and White is working for Seybold and the investors. White never clarified or corrected Seybold’s statements that he was not the attorney for the investors.

Investors sank more than $1 million in Seybold’s plan; about a year later he informed investors he was filing for bankruptcy and that their investments were gone.

The plaintiffs alleged that they each established an attorney-client relationship with the defendants, and even if they didn’t, the defendants still owed them a duty under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, most especially Rule 4.3 laying out a lawyer’s responsibility when dealing with unrepresented persons.

The only attorney-client relationship formed was with the two businesses, the 7th Circuit ruled, rejecting the investors’ claim that White’s presentation at the seminar implied existence of the attorney-client relationship with each investor. The judges also didn’t think Seybold’s comments during White’s presentation implied an attorney-client relationship with investors. They also rejected the claims that a duty was implied under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

“Further, several plaintiffs’ subjective beliefs demonstrate that they understood that the defendants were acting on behalf of the investors as a group, not individually, and that the defendants’ involvement in the investment plan did not last beyond the companies’ formation. And the disclaimer included in the operating agreement that each investor signed should have alerted a reasonable investor that the defendants were not representing them in their personal capacities,” Judge Daniel Manion wrote.

The 7th Circuit also found the investors couldn’t rely on the statements made at the seminar to support their securities fraud or actual fraud claims.

“We need not address the merits of each independent tort … because the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the defendants acted in concert with Seybold to commit any unlawful act, or that they accomplished a lawful purpose through unlawful means,” Manion wrote.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT